Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A coherent style and lighting angle would a step forward. This isn't minimalism, at least in an intentional sense.

I see, sorry for my misunderstanding.

I generally find non-realistic graphical styles to be intriguing though. I did really like the art style of Skyward Sword for instance, I'd love to see that kind of thing in a full and deep HD environment.

I generally find non-realistic graphical styles to be intriguing though. I did really like the art style of Skyward Sword for instance, I'd love to see that kind of thing in a full and deep HD environment.

FFS, what's difference between unrealistic and non-realistic? If you're conflating a hodge podge of conflicting styles as some kind of intentional design choice, you're either misguided or full of it.

For the record, Skyward Sword's style is far more realistic than this New Mario Wii U. And infinitely more consistent.

FFS, what's difference between unrealistic and non-realistic? If you're conflating a hodge podge of conflicting styles as some kind of intentional design choice, you're either misguided or full of it.

For the record, Skyward Sword's style is far more realistic than this New Mario Wii U. And infinitely more consistent.

I've gone beyond dissecting that particular Mario game and talking generalities, I'm not debating the consistency of styles in that Mario game. You might be right if your suggestion is that realistic vs. unrealistic is kind of a BS dichotomy that is frequently misused, but to answer your question, to me "realistic" usually entails more subdued colors and scenery that resembles something you'd find on Earth (Skyrim, and many 3D shooters perhaps come to mind), whereas unrealistic is sort of your Tim Burton fantasy like environment, if that makes any sense....

Talking about that particular game is the opposite of a generality. This is why people hate having "discussions" with you. The moment your lazily thought-out opinions are boiled down to their essentials you've "moved past" the discussion.

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not debating the consistency of styles in that Mario game.

Well, I think it's apropos that if you're going to say they're going for a retro feel, you actually think they're doing it well.

Originally Posted by besson3c

You might be right if your suggestion is that realistic vs. unrealistic is kind of a BS dichotomy that is frequently misused

The only person putting forth that dichotomy is you, besson.

Originally Posted by besson3c

but to answer your question, to me "realistic" usually entails more subdued colors and scenery that resembles something you'd find on Earth (Skyrim, and many 3D shooters perhaps come to mind), whereas unrealistic is sort of your Tim Burton fantasy like environment, if that makes any sense....

Pro-tip: I've never had or heard of a discussion on the realism of of a game's color palette.

Thing is Nintendo have done incredibly well designed games in cartoony style in the past like Wind Waker, but those screens that Dakar posted are as bland as any gunmetal grey and poop brown modern FPS.

Getting a free pass on design aesthetic just because you make it cartoony is a bad thing.

Talking about that particular game is the opposite of a generality. This is why people hate having "discussions" with you. The moment your lazily thought-out opinions are boiled down to their essentials you've "moved past" the discussion.

I'm a little manic with my internet discussions, this is true.

Well, I think it's apropos that if you're going to say they're going for a retro feel, you actually think they're doing it well.

What little I saw didn't look too dissimilar from the recent Wii Mario game, I guess.

The only person putting forth that dichotomy is you, besson.

So in general when people discuss realism is the meaning and definition generally understood?

I'm going to wait on that one to see more info, so far it doesn't have anything related to Most Wanted that I can see, other than the name. No characters, black list, car mods, etc. Hopefully it doesn't have the typical Need For Speed physics of feeling like you are driving on ice. From what I've seen it seems more like a polished version of Need For Speed World, but I'm going to give it a chance, as Most Wanted was my favorite Need For Speed game in about 10 years.

Looks to be the most customizable FPS I've seen. Apparently the unlocks are so plentiful that it would take 7 years to achieve them all (without micro-transactions). One really interesting aspect of that game is that of dynamic battlefields...

Each planet will be divided into separate districts with its own resources and infrastructure with each area varying from one section to the next with the landscape the only thing remaining static. Various battles and player decisions will be reflected, for example: “previous or existing battles may cause the destruction or creation of new infrastructures by orbital fleet bombardments or new deployments by the theater commander that may alter the shape and look of the battlefield,” said CCP’s community manager CmdrWang. Thus, memorizing the map won’t do you much good.

I wish this game had come out 2-3 years earlier in the PS3's lifespan.

No, no...it's worse/better than that (depending on how one looks at it).

It's an FPS that's tied to the MMO. Despite being linked to EVE Online, Dust 514 is going to seem, in most regards, like a traditional multiplayer FPS, just with some tie-ins like requesting air support from players of EVE Online, battling on planets that are up for grabs, etc. It's cool in some regards, but I'm guessing anyone who is serious about unlocking everything will be spending hundreds on micro-transactions, especially since the PS3 will likely only have another two years or so in its tank.

The draw of the game doesn't really seem to be the unlock system. The draw is the unique connection to the world of EVE Online.

The only thing I'm worried about is how well they're going to pull it off, and if it's going to be confusing in application. I'm incredibly interested in this game, and since it's free-to-play, it's not a financial risk. I just wonder if it can live up to its promise. PS3-centric journalists are apparently going gaga over it at E3.

Messages posted to Miiverse, Nintendo's suite of Wii U social functions, could face a delay of around 30 minutes to appear.
This is because the social networking service will be actively moderated by Nintendo-employed "human resources" personnel.

I always hated the D&D alignment system. It just doesn't make sense, and has too many irrelevant but implied connotations. Like the Neutral Good fellow: why is he so friendly, while his Lawful and Chaotic buddies are typically unfriendly. Why does this implied characterization exist? Can't a person be Neutral Good and naturally unfriendly?

Also, think of Robin Hood: Chaotic Good, right? Wrong, he should be considered Lawful Good, because he's trying to restore the rightful King to the throne. Someone who is Chaotic shouldn't believe in any kind of Law at all.

Or think about the meaninglessness of Lawful. What does it mean? I've seen NPCs described as Lawful because they believe in political institutions, or because they believe Reality is naturally orderly, or simply because the NPC is well-organized, clean, and fastidious.

I usually found it more useful to describe characters like this: Mostly Good, but Sometimes Dishonest. Or Mostly Evil, but Honourable and Forgiving.

Forget it, just a random complaint from my youth. I don't even care about RPGs at all now.

You'll be glad to learn that they got rid of it, then. The 4th edition has dropped the two-axis space and turned it into a single axis: Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Also, think of Robin Hood: Chaotic Good, right? Wrong, he should be considered Lawful Good, because he's trying to restore the rightful King to the throne. Someone who is Chaotic shouldn't believe in any kind of Law at all.

Robin Hood is only used to motivate the existence of that corner, because as you say, it doesn't quite make sense. Lawful Good is obvious - think Superman or something, or just a benevolent ruler. Chaotic Evil is also easy - burn everything, so the personification of a destructive force (like a Demon, or the Joker). Lawful Evil is easy enough - a evil dictator, for instance - but Chaotic Good doesn't work. You'd have to be someone who wants to wreck things just because, as that somehow leads to good, and that's not Robin Hood. He'd probably be Neutral Good.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Or think about the meaninglessness of Lawful. What does it mean? I've seen NPCs described as Lawful because they believe in political institutions, or because they believe Reality is naturally orderly, or simply because the NPC is well-organized, clean, and fastidious.

I usually found it more useful to describe characters like this: Mostly Good, but Sometimes Dishonest. Or Mostly Evil, but Honourable and Forgiving.

Forget it, just a random complaint from my youth. I don't even care about RPGs at all now.

As I understand it, Lawful and Chaotic were the original designations, but they wanted to add wards against evil, Devils were Lawful and they should obviously be guarded against, so they added a second axis This little compromise survived far too long, before being simplified to what there is in the 4th Edition: LG and most of LN are now LG. NG and the silly CG are now G. TN and a bit of the NG and NE are now N, LE and NE are E, and CE and some of CN are now CE. Much easier, I understand - never played a 4E game myself.

The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.

Though the Ultimate Fighting Franchise games appeared to be one of THQ's few successes, the company says it sold the brand's exclusive license to Electronic Arts because it failed to break even on the latest release.

IGN: One of the things that is on the minds of active core gamers is 'console parity'. If I'm going to get a Wii U, it's going to need to have what's on PS3 or Xbox 360, minus first party. But when I look at what you guys have announced currently, I'm not seeing Resident Evil 6, GTA V is a big one, Tomb Raider, some of these major, major third-party offerings. Are you at all concerned that Wii U doesn't necessarily have those games? Is it just a matter of maybe that third parties - we were talking about western developers maybe waiting for that installed base - is that something you're noticing, that western developers are pulling back a little bit?

Fils-Aime: Well, certainly the typical western developer does wait for the installed base. Unless they are so passionate that they make a big bet, like Ubisoft has made a big bet. Obviously Warner Bros. has made a bet.

Beyond that, I wouldn't take the fact that things haven't been announced yet as a signal that it's not happening. But, you know... My job is to launch the system and to drive its installed base, and we're going to do that very effectively. And then hopefully that will create the opportunity for third parties to jump on board.

Are we actually seeing PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 video games at E3 and no one's admitting it?

A couple of days earlier, just minutes after Ubisoft's live gameplay demo of the Grand Theft Auto-meets-Deus Ex Watch Dogs games, Ubisoft spokespeople were stretching this way and that to not answer my simple question of which platforms that game is for. And then we found listings on Ubi's press site for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Star Wars 1313 looks even more visually stunning than Watch Dogs. For that one, LucasArts is saying only that the game demo is using a heavily-modified Unreal Engine 3 and is running on a PC.

A rep for Epic Games, the company that provides UE3 to studios like Lucas, told me that the version of the Engine that Lucas is using is close to what ran the extraordinary "Samaritan" demo that was shown a year ago at the Game Developers' Conference in San Francisco. That demo, the Epic rep reiterated to me this week, ran on a spec that requires better hardware than we've got in the 360 and PS3 (whether the Wii U could handle it remains an open question; Epic's not saying and we haven't been able to as Nintendo yet). That Samaritan demo was basically Epic's way of suggesting to console manufacturers what kind of hardware power it would be beneficial for them to have in their next consoles.

I started writing an article that was along the lines of "The top five takeaways of E3 2012." That included trends such as connectivity and integration of products (SmartGlass, PS3/Vita cross-play), Sony and Nintendo's lack of a spotlight on dedicated handhelds, and how there was little at E3 in the way of emerging business models and platforms.

Forget that, this is how I really feel.

E3 2012 was finally the E3 of my disillusionment with the so-called triple-A video game industry. And yes, it really did take this long.

E3 2012 was unabashed pandering to the lowest common denominator, more than ever before. The video game industry wants to be respected as a medium that can be held up to the same creative standards as a New York Times best-selling book or an Oscar-winning movie. Instead, the games industry is complacent in further developing its relegation as a semi-interactive Michael Bay mocking bird.

Go to E3 and try to identify trends, you'll soon realize that you're looking into the past. E3 2012 could've been E3 2006. It is a museum without the informative placards. It's an archaeologist's dream. It's a reality show starring a washed-up rockstar. It's old gameplay. Old themes. A parade of old business models meant to pacify retailers, patting them on the head to assure them that they will be as relevant five years from now as they are today. E3 2012 was a fool's circus, more than any other E3 that I've been to. It insulted my intelligence, and insulted my enthusiasm for video games.

John Siracusa had some interesting things to say about the Wii U in his Hypercritical podcast, he talked about this at length.

I don't sense that there are many Nintendo fans here, but put aside your beliefs on Nintendo's business strategy, whether the Wii U (and 3DS) will ultimately succeed, etc. Put on your geek hat, the one with the propellor on it.

The Wii U introduces a whole range of very interesting gaming possibilities.

The multiple controllers thing is not new, but the whole cooperative gameplay with these new controllers is pretty cool, especially when combined with what is possible online. Having the controller with a screen on it allows you to keep some things secret from other players you are playing with in the same physical proximity, while the big screen the Wii U is attached to presents information to all players.

The examples Nintendo presented in being able to golf off of the new controller while it is on the ground and using the Wiimote is interesting (perhaps something like this could be used for baseball too), and being able to flip stuff from the new controller to the main screen is also interesting. Ditto for having a touchscreen on the controller.

Again, I'm not saying that Nintendo will succeed and/or get their online stuff right, but the creative potential with all of this stuff is pretty cool, I think. I'm really interested in seeing what sort of games will be released for the Wii U and how they'll take advantage of all of this stuff. Battle Quest looks like it might be fun, but probably more so as a light party game. I'm kind of more interested in the deeper, longer games.

The multiple controllers thing is not new, but the whole cooperative gameplay with these new controllers is pretty cool, especially when combined with what is possible online. Having the controller with a screen on it allows you to keep some things secret from other players you are playing with in the same physical proximity, while the big screen the Wii U is attached to presents information to all players.

For certain types of games, sure, but as a standard for all games, indeed a gimmick. iPad is successful for casual games and games ports specifically made for it. Have you tried to seriously play a game on the iPad with a virtual stick layout? Not ideal for anything other than casual and general type gaming by far. This is why now Nintendo had to create a standard controller. Since they are trying to get major third parties who are doing ports of PS3 and 360 games, even they know that they need to have some real standard controls there. We might get deja vu of them creating their own games for their controller layout again and third parties staying put where the platforms are a little more level without the need for building a completely new game to support their controller, or maybe not? I'm just saying I'm waiting to see what happens over time.

I'm sure they will do better, but I'm getting tired of all the gimmicks overall from the industry. I just want some great games.

I wonder if the sales of the Wii have actually been bad for the games industry as a whole. Now it seems that people are trying to find interesting user interfaces and then developing games around them.

I wonder if the sales of the Wii have actually been bad for the games industry as a whole. Now it seems that people are trying to find interesting user interfaces and then developing games around them.

Do game makers earn a percentage of sales of console accessories, such as a steering wheel or whatever?

Just watched Click, a tech programme on BBC, with a round up of E3 showing the Wii U, Smartglass and the PS3/Vita crossover and a few games. Apparently Sony have said the PS4 will have an optical drive so won't be download/streaming only, the Wii U has an optical drive too. So with all this stuff about game labels coming down on pre owned games and what's happened to GAME stores here this year, they'll still be selling discs alongside download versions for at least 2 out of 3 Of the major consoles.

Do game makers earn a percentage of sales of console accessories, such as a steering wheel or whatever?

I seem to remember seeing some accessories being "Licensed" and others not, which I guess would amount to: Yes, in some cases.

Originally Posted by mattyb

I wonder if the sales of the Wii have actually been bad for the games industry as a whole. Now it seems that people are trying to find interesting user interfaces and then developing games around them.

Only in the sense that iTunes was bad for the music industry. There is a presentation from Firaxis (the guys that make Civilization) on their reasoning for making sequels. I can't find the link, but basically, it amounts to this: The fans of the last game in the series will want a new one that is a straight development of that one, with a few more added features, but if you only cater to them, you end up getting smaller and smaller sales because fewer and fewer crazy fans will buy them. You have to always re-evaluate your core mechanism to see what is now obsolete. The Civ series is full of good and bad examples of doing this.

Here's the deal: I don't think that the Wii took much sales from the PS3 and the X360. Some, on the edges, but not much. What it did was sell games to a different group of people, by dropping things that are no longer required and starting over, trying to develop what is fun and inclusive about gaming. CoD and all of its followers are the very definition of exclusive games - you can't just drop in to play, you have to train for a long time being rather bad at it and then learn. The controls are the very opposite of natural, and they only work because they're more or less the same from one game to the next.

Touch screen controls are much more natural in that respect - just look at a complete newbie when you give him an iPhone versus a dumbphone and watch him try to unlock it. By moving lesser-used controls to the touchscreen, you can both have a more natural flow in the game - not so steep a learning curve - and be more flexible.

The console is in serious trouble as a dedicated gaming device. As more of a home theater center, it may work, but such a device can't cost $600 and rely on game sales to be profitable. If the rumors about Haswell and Crystalwell are true, the PC could be making an unexpected comeback for more serious games, with iOS and similar taking the casual games. Nintendo knows that they can never beat Intel at its own game and going too casual will never pay for those expensive consoles, so their path is to lower the barrier of entry for current casual gamers to move to something more immersive. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.

The console is in serious trouble as a dedicated gaming device. As more of a home theater center, it may work, but such a device can't cost $600 and rely on game sales to be profitable. If the rumors about Haswell and Crystalwell are true, the PC could be making an unexpected comeback for more serious games, with iOS and similar taking the casual games. Nintendo knows that they can never beat Intel at its own game and going too casual will never pay for those expensive consoles, so their path is to lower the barrier of entry for current casual gamers to move to something more immersive. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Can't agree with you here I'm afraid. Just look at the sales of the last few CoD games on consoles. Big game companies love consoles - more control over the end user (XBL, PSN, Wii Network). And a new Xbox can be had for as little as $200.

You don't see a touch screen as anything more than a gimmick? I would say that the touch screen is at least in part inspired by the iPad, which has been a surprising success in the world of gaming.

A success in the world of casual gaming. Take the Top 10 titles from XBOX Live and see how many could be comfortably played well on an iPad. I imagine the number will be very small.

Originally Posted by mattyb

I wonder if the sales of the Wii have actually been bad for the games industry as a whole. Now it seems that people are trying to find interesting user interfaces and then developing games around them.

No, it probably was very good, superficially, and hopefully opened the door to getting people to consider the higher-end more serious systems. If it hadn't been for the Wii this gen would have looked like a sales disaster thanks to the console prices.

Originally Posted by mattyb

Can't agree with you here I'm afraid. Just look at the sales of the last few CoD games on consoles. Big game companies love consoles - more control over the end user (XBL, PSN, Wii Network). And a new Xbox can be had for as little as $200.

Yep, which is why PC users get treated like the red-headed step-children of the gaming community. Of course, chances are we'll all benefit from this shabby treatment, because as large publishers thumb their nose, it opens the door to indie developers to offer more attractive games.

As discussed in a recent Rockstar blog post, anyone confirmed to be using hacks to gain powers like invincibility, infinite adrenaline, or modified scores in Max Payne 3 will be placed into a "Cheaters Pool" for online matches, where they'll get a taste of their own medicine by playing only with other cheaters.

Can't agree with you here I'm afraid. Just look at the sales of the last few CoD games on consoles. Big game companies love consoles - more control over the end user (XBL, PSN, Wii Network). And a new Xbox can be had for as little as $200.

Sure, a $200 box might sell - but a new box won't cost $200. What you're missing is the economies of scale. They have always worked for the consoles, but they're starting to work against it with Intel integrated graphics creeping up from below and every iOS device ever taking the casual gaming part.

The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.

Sure, a $200 box might sell - but a new box won't cost $200. What you're missing is the economies of scale. They have always worked for the consoles, but they're starting to work against it with Intel integrated graphics creeping up from below and every iOS device ever taking the casual gaming part.

Intel integrated graphics won't run the newest games (at the very least in purdy mode), and if we can get to place where it does, I guarantee you whatever cheap-ass tech is being used will also go into the consoles.

Agreed. I got a buddy with a few games that look pretty bad on his Sandy bridge video, because the chip is weak for anything outside of entry level and the casual space.

What I want out of these newer systems is a lot more power to bring in some better AI. That's an area that seems to get overlooked due to them just trying to make everything online, IMO. If we can get to a point where there are no difficulty settings and the game can just adjust to how you play, that would be something evolutionary. But that is going to take these insane machines that Microsoft and Sony are trying to push, so I hope they both keep fighting it out on the high end to get to that point.

Sure, a $200 box might sell - but a new box won't cost $200. What you're missing is the economies of scale. They have always worked for the consoles, but they're starting to work against it with Intel integrated graphics creeping up from below and every iOS device ever taking the casual gaming part.

Even if its $500, it'll sell. These are living-room-connected-to-TVs-computers; gamers and film renters don't give a shit whats inside. CoD, Halo, Gears and Lionhead are probably enough to guarantee good sales for the Xbox 720.

Sony will have to match MS for price. If they release before MS at an 'interesting' price, then they'll probably do well, but take a hit short/med term financially (is this acceptable atm, not sure in the present climate). If they come out after they have to be cheaper AND better. Remember MS have deep pockets, Sony don't.